2010-01-11T05:05:59Z opencongress.org tag:opencongress.org,2007:/bill/comments/56433 2010-01-11T05:05:59Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-01-11:/comment/181256 mkail666 I would like to see some actual comments as to why so many people support this bill. From what I understand this "Fair Election System" would be optional. In some cases a candidate would be better off not opting into this system. If all candidates did opt into this system, the matching payments would increase the disparity between them, not reduce it. Also, the language in this bill does not guarantee matching funds to all willing participants (i.e. third parties) and the requirements for qualification could be hard to meet by even Republicans and Democrats. 2010-01-11T09:24:33Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-01-11:/comment/181268 KaiserKuchen I support this bill because it is a step in the right direction. The bill is not perfect, not that any bill is, but it is important. I have read it and went to the committee hearing in DC in July for this bill. As I understand it, if you can get the minimum required signatures you will be eligible for funding. If your opponent does not participate in the system, the system will fund you more to make it a fairer race. Plus, if I'm running under this system and my opponent isn't, it gives me something to bring up in debates/ads. I can say hey look I'm here working for the people while my opponent is working for these special interests. True or not, you could bring that up. That is how political ads work anyway. 2010-01-21T14:23:57Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-01-21:/comment/182102 nmeagent Beware of any bill with the word "fair" in the title -- more often than not it will be anything but. I oppose this bill on general principle. I don't think public money of any kind should be used to fund *anyone's* campaign. 2010-01-25T03:43:15Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-01-25:/comment/182362 Mazeman We need a bill like this now more than ever after The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission 1-21-10. As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent against the ruling, “the court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.” 2010-01-25T12:52:07Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-01-25:/comment/182411 nmeagent Where does the federal government derive any authority to be involved in the funding of political campaigns at all? This is not a power enumerated in the Constitution. We shouldn't even be having this discussion. You may perhaps think bills like this are a 'good idea', but that really doesn't enter into it. The federal government is restricted to its enumerated powers; anything else is not legal (and yes -- this means at least 2/3 of what the government is doing is illegal). If you wish to regulate campaign finances then attempt to pass such a bill at the state level. 2010-01-25T12:53:47Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-01-25:/comment/182412 nmeagent I should have said 'regulate or provide for a publicly funded alternative to private sector funding' instead of just 'regulate'. 2010-01-25T19:16:49Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-01-25:/comment/182450 spender Well, Article I, Section IV says: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Choosing Senators." The question then becomes how do you define the "Manner." It's an unfortunately vague word. 2010-01-25T19:48:55Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-01-25:/comment/182453 spender I think people support this because everyone is worried that Congress pays more attention to its big donors than to the voters. The left and right are worried about different deep pockets buying up the government, and that fear is not unfounded. If the system were mandatory, its supporters would probably like it even more. (I would.) The things you mention--the disparity caused by matching funds, the potential for 3rd parties to lose on funds--are all better options than having a corporation or other group with a billion dollars campaigning against your preferred candidate. At least this way candidates get money by making it onto the ballot and getting people to trust them enough hand over $50. If a candidate earns twice as much money as their opponent and gets a boost from the matching funds, then perhaps they earned it. Or perhaps they're just better at BS, but it beats having them pick up $5 million in a backroom deal. This way they come back to the people for more money. 2010-01-26T03:38:38Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-01-26:/comment/182464 snarlbuckle I personally find this bill unfair. Unless I have read it incorrectly, it seems to favor those that are in office and not the competition. It is currently hard enough for a new candidate to replace an entrenched congressmen, let alone when congress spends government money without having to campaign as much. This bill tips an already skewed scale in my opinion, and I am not in favor. 2010-01-26T13:58:21Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-01-26:/comment/182524 nmeagent Political advertisements and other communications related to the election are not part of the election itself. Article I section IV would apply to the regulations involving the actual holding of the election, as in how the votes are counted, regulations within the physical confines of a voting location, etc. 2010-01-26T14:01:16Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-01-26:/comment/182525 nmeagent "...but it beats having them pick up $5 million in a backroom deal." I think we should instead work on prosecuting the recipients of this sort of bribery. 2010-01-29T08:14:54Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-01-29:/comment/182820 missliberty I have to wonder what the founding fathers would think about the lobbyists in Washington. Did you know that the only reason that Congressmen were ever paid a salary was so that poor people could serve if elected? The positions occupied by the Senators and Represenatives were supposed to be positions of honor and were to be undertaken as a service to our country. Why should these people receive any more money that those people that risk their lives everyday in the Armed Forces? I don't know about you, but I am fed up. I believe that campaign contributions should only come from individuals and be limited to $5000. end of story. The Senators, Representatives and Justices should be reminded that they are on OUR PAYROLL! I like Obama's idea to publish information about who is meeting with who in Washington. If you own your own business don't you keep tabs on your employees? 2010-01-29T08:18:22Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-01-29:/comment/182821 missliberty More than 20 years ago, President Carter warned that the flow of money into washington and the resulting influence of special interests would destroy our democracy. I believe it has already happened. I hope I live to see the day when Congress is eliminated completely and every vote is a direct vote from the PEOPLE of the United States. I think at least there should be a very LARGE visual at each senators desk showing how the people he is supposedly respesenting would vote. I think this might be a lot harder to ignore when our PUBLIC SERVANTS are voting on bills before congress. We have the technology to do this. If I can pay my credit card bill on line, from funds from my checking account why the hell can't I use my computer to cast a vote? Now is the time for our Public Servants to be held more accountable for their actions. I want to know where they are, and who they are meeting with and what money is changing hands. 2010-01-29T08:20:24Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-01-29:/comment/182822 missliberty Do you know where your Congressman is? Would you let your secretary just wander out the door when ever she wanted and without any explanation as to where she was going or when she was going to be back? 2010-01-29T13:22:39Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-01-29:/comment/182852 nmeagent All campaign contributions already come from individuals, though indirectly in many cases. Corporations and other organizations are all owned or controlled by individuals, they don't have minds of their own. 2010-01-28T15:48:50Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-01-28:/comment/182727 nmeagent Just to be clear, I'm only talking about the federal government and not the states. Congress may regulate elections, yes, but they may not infringe on the rights protected by the Bill of Rights in doing so. The 1st Amendment explicitly says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech". This pretty much destroys any legitimacy of so called federal campaign-finance reform laws which, among other things, regulate the purchase and delivery of a form of protected speech. I would also argue that Congressional authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of Congressional elections is limited in scope to their actual time, places, and manner. The intent of the Constitution was to limit the scope and power of the federal government; it is absurd to suggest in the case of Congressional elections that their authority extends to every peripheral subject upon which it touches. 2010-01-31T12:43:28Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-01-31:/comment/183028 nmeagent Caps on monetary contributions don't violate the first amendment. However, the federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to regulate such. The federal government DOES regulate what sorts of political ads can be broadcast close to an election, which DOES violate the first amendment. The FCC DOES violate the first amendment on a daily basis by enforcing so called "public decency" standards. I also believe the FCC doesn't have the Constitutional authority to regulate the frequency spectrum, while we're talking about them. 2010-01-31T12:43:38Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-01-31:/comment/183029 nmeagent "Also, the Constitution was NOT designed to limit the scope of the federal government." Excuse me? Perhaps you can explain to me the existence of the 9th and 10th amendments then, seeing as how they do exactly that. Hell, the Bill of Rights flies in the face of that ridiculous statement. Yes, the Constitution created a FEDERAL government out of a decentralized confederacy. A FEDERAL government absolutely limited to specific enumerated powers, everything else granted to the states and/or the people. I'm beginning to think you may not have read it and are generally unfamiliar with the history of the period. Either that or you're just being disingenuous. 2010-01-31T13:57:34Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-01-31:/comment/183034 nmeagent The problem we have is individuals with lots of capital paying politicians to use government to benefit them and skew the playing field. If the government is not able to do so in the first place, you've eliminated much of the problem. Likely there would still be some way of skewing the system, of course, but at this point perhaps the courts could actually be given a chance to work. Justice would be on a much better footing with a less corruptible system. 2010-01-31T13:58:29Z tag:opencongress.org,2010-01-31:/comment/183035 nmeagent Whoops, this is supposed to be part 2 of a response to spender down there.